Mr. Chairman, again let us go through on what this amendment does. It will take away what Smith & Wesson, as far as I am concerned and we heard from my colleague from California, on good business sense. We see unfortunately in this country over 100,000 injuries. Those are the people that have been injured by guns but have not died. Across this country, billions of dollars are spent every single year for the health care services. We all end up paying for that. What Smith & Wesson is saying is they are going to work on technology, technology to make guns safer. Guns that are in 51 percent of the homes today, they will be a safer product. We strive here constantly on many manufacturers to have them come up with safer products. We see it with cars. We see it with our medications and bottles. We have done that for years and years and years. We see different manufacturers coming up with new, safer ways to make our citizens safe. Well, this is what Smith & Wesson is doing. We get lost in this debate all the time when we start talking about the Constitution, when we start talking about upholding the Constitution. All of us here, when we are sworn in as Congresspeople, swear to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what I do.
José E. Serrano: “Mr. Chairman, again let us go through on what this amendment does. It will take away what Smith & Wesson, as far as I am…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of gun safety technology and the role of manufacturers like Smith & Wesson.
Share
More from José E. Serrano
Spending time outdoors is one of the best ways to support both mental and physical well-being and New York State is home to some of the best parks and green spaces.
Well, one of the things that I have repeatedly said to the committee, which they are tired of hearing already, but you haven't heard it yet, is that my experience, I have never seen an auditorium of children and young people, high school…
Since NASA has already programmed the lunar landing mission for 2028, why does it suddenly need to speed up the clock by 4 years?
An additional $25 billion cost would severely impact vital programs, not only under this subcommittee, but across all non-defense subcommittees.





